CWB DILEMMA.

[TOM4CWB]

My view on the history lesson is - that was then, this is now. Not trying to be flip, but farmers have the power to effect changes to this organization through election, so that perspective all changed in 1998 with a new Bd of Directors.

But I do think this debate reveals true intentions and orientation to see the single desk dissolved. And that's the real debate. No one is arguing that western Canadian wheat wouldn't find a home without the CWB, the discussion should be about how to make the biggest pile of money out of the grain available for sale on ony given year.

Look, the single desk selling authority is a gift from the legislators. It is not unlike a patent in my mind. It provides protection to have the benefits flow back to the producers of the grain. Generally farmers are a long way from the end-user and there are numerous opportunities for others to get in the pipeline in between them. And middlemen seek and retain profits. The CWB passes back all the returns to farmers every year.

Tom

[parsley]

bobn,
That was a very interesting account.

You probably know that the CWB revised the Act again in '47, but they had a real problem because the Wartime monopoly they had enjoyed couldn't carry on in peacetime!

On January 8, 1946, the Solicitor for the CWB Henry Monk wrote a letter to the Department of Trade and Commerce, reflecting these very concerns:

"....we have some real doubt if the Dominion Government can, in peace time, grant to the Board the powers it has received and exercised in wartime."

The Wheat Board's lawyer understood that expropriation of farmers' grain was not constitutionally possible, and a single desk for Canadian farmers was NOT possible, but a tariff was. However, those who are fervent single desk supporters today, don't want to acknowledge that single desk legislation was NOT put in place in the CWB Act. That lack of acceptance still pops up today, even in Moderator thalpenny's yearnings, "Obviously, the legislators understood that by granting the single-desk....".

Reality is: Legislators didn't grant a single desk. There is no single desk written in legislation, but many think there is because guys like thalpenny keep TELLING us there is. The only reason we have a single desk in the West is because we get denied licenses. And farmers should be hounding the Board, "Why are we denied export licenses just because we live in the West?"

Parsley

[parsley]

thalpenny,

I am not interested in having a debate about the merits of the single desk on this thread, thalpenny. Or having a debate about the merits of pooling, either. We can do that another time. What the issue here is this....the CWB says that legally, farmers have to do a buyback in order to get an export license. I am saying 14b does NOT say that farmers have to do the buyback, thalpenny.

It is not a requirement,so why does the CWB say it is?

Why is the Wheat Board itself requiring
the buyback if Parliament does not?

These are the questions that must be addressed, because if they are not, the CWB's concoted buyback-requirement becomes a malicious hoax.

Parsley

[bobn]

Thalpenny,

You stated:

"Look, the single desk selling authority is a gift from the legislators."

Some gift! This gift cost farmers $535,000,000 on their crops from 1943-44 because of this gift.

[TOM4CWB]

Thalpenny;

You stated;

"Look, the single desk selling authority is a gift from the legislators."

If a gift is truly a gift, in a just and free society, shouldn't we have the right to refuse a gift that hurts our society, that is destroying its very foundations?

I am sorry Thalpenny, I am afraid I cannot consider the CWB a gift, but I am sure CURSE is more what will come to the mind of many who have had to accept the CWB's "help".

And isn't that the difference between a gift and a curse, one is wanted and needed, while the curse is ... ?

[TOM4CWB]

parsley, you have neglected to answer my question about how to capture the pecuniary benefit that is created by the prohibition of the export of grain. If not through a process of establishing the market price into the destination export market, then what?

Methinks you are dodging this because it does not fit with the circle that you have placed all your marbles in, namely that a no-cost export license is a fair way to go.

Regarding tom4cwb, the perspective of gift or curse is analogous to the persepctive fo the CWB as a seller of farmers grain or a buyer of farmers grain. Seeing as all returns are distributed to all farmers each year and there are no retained earnings, I argue that the CWB is the seller of farmers grain.

Tom

[TOM4CWB]

Thalpenny thanks for bringing this up!

If the CWB had earned the privilege of buying our wheat, I assure you we would not be having this discussion here today.

All the CWB election does, is allow those who refuse to learn to market their own products, an excuse to keep forcing me into subsidising their farms.

Democracy without respect for each other, is just gang warfare.

AND the majority of the voters to this point, so far, have decided to have your CWB GANG...steal... from the average commercial farmer's bank account.

Does this make what,... the CWB Gang does... right Thalpenny.......?

[parsley]

Let's go right to the Act itself, thalpenny, not the regulation you posted, because the regulation gets its' force from the Act, and bureaucrats have been known to create a regulation that doesn't mirror what the Act demands. Here is 46(d) directly from the Act:

"(d) to prescribe the terms and conditions on which licences described in paragraph (c) may be granted, including a requirement for the recovery from the applicant by the Corporation or any other person specified by the regulation, of a sum that, in the opinion of the Corporation, represents the pecuniary benefit enuring to the applicant pursuant to the granting of a licence, arising solely by reason of the prohibition of exports of wheat and wheat products without a licence and then existing differences between prices of wheat and wheat products inside and outside Canada;"
R.S., 1985, c. C-24, s. 46; 1988, c. 65, s. 60; 1993, c. 44, s. 49; 1994, c. 47, s. 49; 1997, c. 36, s. 204; 1998, c. 17, ss. 24, 28(E)

I will give you some examples how Parliament's tariff formula has been applied since 46(d)'s inception. Let's begin with the price of wheat "inside Canada" as it was set by Regulation P.C. 3038, July 31, 1947:

"Domestic Wheat"
"The Board shall sell wheat to millers, processors, manufacturers, dealers and others for domestic requirements in Canada other than the production of alcohol at and for the price of one dollar and fifty five cents per bushel for wheat of the grade of Number One Manitoba Northern basis in store Fort William/Port Arthur or Vancouver........"


* means an exampled price, not a real price

Example #1

Year: 1947
Cdn Gov't Set Price Wheat $1.55
*World Price of Wheat $2.00 and going up because of shortages
*Parliament's Formula= $2.00 minus $1.55
*Pecuniary Benefit paid directly to Ottawa's Consolidated Revenue Fund was $0.45 per bushel


Example #2

1952
*Cdn Gov't Set Price Wheat $1.55
*World Price of Wheat $2.55
*Parliament's Formula= $2.55 minus $1.55
*Pecuniary Benefit paid directly to Ottawa's Consolidated Revenue Fund was $1.00 per bushel

1966
*Cdn Gov't Set Price Wheat $2.00
*World Price of Wheat $3.00
*Parliament's Formula= $3.00 minus $2.00
*Pecuniary Benefit paid directly to Ottawa's Consolidated Revenue Fund was $1.00 per bushel


2002
*Cdn Price of Wheat is Set at World Price of Wheat $x.00
*World Price is the Same as the Canadian Price of Wheat $x.00
*Parliament's Formula= $x.00 minus $x.00
*Pecuniary Benefit paid directly to Ottawa's Consolidated Revenue Fund was $0.00 per bushel


Any profits from operations of the CWB under Part IV of the Act, which is where 46(d) is situated, are required to be paid into the government consolidated revenue fund according to Section 7.(2) of the Act which states:

"Profits realized by the Corporation from its operations in wheat under this Act during any crop year, other than its operations under part III, with respect to the disposition of which no provision is made elsewhere in this Act, shall be paid to the Receiver General for the Consolidated Revenue Fund."

The tariff formula was/is applied to all license applicants which included farmers and companies in every province. I hardly think that in 1947, the Government would take tariff money from some exporting Ontario flour company and deposit it in Prairie farmer's pooling accounts, do you thalpenny? Tarrif money to only Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba farmers? Or in 1952, or in 1966 either. The concept is ludicrous as well illegal.

By constantly claiming that 46(d) [which is the Act], and 14(b) [which is the corresponding regulation], (with both of them in Part IV), describe the buy-backs, the CWB would be taking the "profits" from Part IV and putting them into the pooling accounts in Part III. This is in contravention of section 7.(2) of the Act since no provision is stated for profits in Part IV.

46(d) is not the buyback, thalpenny and wishing will not make it so.

2002 thalpenny's Wishlist Version as he disregards Parliament's legislative formula
* Designated Area Initial Price $3.25
* Destination Export Market Price at $7.00
*Halpenny's Formula= $7.00 minus $3.25
*Pecuniary Benefit paid directly to DA Pooling Account should be $3.75/bushel

This is exactly what the CWB is doing. And it has to stop.

Parsley

[parsley]

I want to correct the following statement I wrote:

"This is exactly what the CWB is doing. And it has to stop."

It should read;

"The CWB keeps telling us that thalpenny's Wishlist Version is what the Act demands, and that is not true. And it has to stop.

Parsley